Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rathnamma @ Marakka vs Smt.Madamma @ Chikkolamma on 25 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.832/2009 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA @ MARAKKA,
W/O. LATE MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SRI SHIVASHANKARA,
S/O. LATE MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
MADEGOWDANA DODDI,
HAMLET OF TATTEKERE,
BANAVASI MANDAL PANCHAYATH,
MARALAWADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SMT. MADAMMA @ CHIKKOLAMMA,
DEAD BY LR.
2
1(A) SHIVAMMA @ MAHADEVAMMA,
W/O. T.K. KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT V.V. EXTENSION,
(NEAR WATER TANK),
HOSAKOTE TOWN,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PAPI REDDY G., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI VARUN PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2009,
PASSED IN R.A. NO.11/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), RAMANAGARA,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.10.2007 PASSED
IN O.S. NO.348/1992, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, KANAKAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, a compromise petition is presented
on behalf of the appellants. The second appellant has
signed the compromise petition.
2. On behalf of Legal Representative Respondent
No.1(A) - Shivamma, her son namely Lakshmisha has
presented the compromise petition.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the
first appellant and Respondent No.1(A) are absent, as
they find it extremely difficult to be present personally
due to their old age. They undertake to file either a
General Power of Attorney or an affidavit of 1st appellant
- Rathnamma stating that she had authorized her son
second appellant to enter into the compromise on her
behalf. Similarly, it is submitted that the affidavit or
GPA of Shivamma would be filed stating that she had
authorized her son Lakshmisha, who is present before
the Court, to enter into the compromise.
4. Both the counsel submit that they have
instructions that the matter could be settled and the
compromise petition could be accepted.
5. Recording the said submission, the compromise
petition is accepted.
6. Under the compromise, the properties described in
the 'A' schedule are allotted to the share of Shivamma
i.e. Respondent No.1(A) and the properties described in
'B' schedule are allotted to the share of the appellants.
They have accepted to divide the schedule properties in
the manner stated in the compromise petition.
7. Having regard to the fact that the suit was for
partition and the parties have agreed to share the
properties in the manner stated in the compromise
petition, I hold that the compromise petition is lawful
and deserves to be accepted.
8. The parties also submit that they have entered
into the compromise petition without any duress or
compulsion. The second appeal is accordingly disposed
of in terms of the joint memo.
9. The second appellant is granted two weeks' time to
file an affidavit or GPA of the first appellant ratifying the
compromise that has been entered into. Similarly,
R1(A) is directed to file an affidavit or GPA ratifying the
compromise entered into by her son Lakshmisha on her
behalf.
10. It is stated that item No.1 was formerly Survey
No.44/3 and is presently assigned new Survey
No.44/10 and hence in the compromise petition the
present Survey Number has been entered.
11. Similarly, it is stated that item No.3 of the suit
property which has been described as Survey No.72 has
now assigned new number i.e. Survey No.72/P16. In
view of the said assignment, in the compromise memo
also, new Survey Number has been stated. Office to
indicate that item No.5 of the 'A' schedule in the
compromise petition is in respect of land bearing Survey
No.72/P16 formerly Survey No.72.
12. Office to draw a Final Decree in terms of the
compromise petition and reflect the Survey numbers
mentioned in the compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
